Adamson v. Dodge

• Decision Date: 24 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-255.,05-255.
• Citation: 2006 VT 89,910 A.2d 821
• Parties: Dawn ADAMSON (Dodge) v. Jeffrey DODGE.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

910 A.2d 821

2006 VT 89

Dawn ADAMSON (Dodge) v. Jeffrey DODGE.

No. 05-255.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

August 24, 2006.

Motion for Reargument Denied October 3, 2006.

Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND and BURGESS, JJ.

ENTRY ORDER

¶ 1. Father, Jeffrey Dodge, appeals the family court's denial of several motions related to the relocation of mother and custodial parent, Dawn Adamson. Father contests the denial of his request to enforce and find mother in contempt of a parent-child contact order; he opposes the award of mother's motion for modification of parent-child contact; and he challenges the denial of his request for fees and costs. We affirm.

¶ 2. The parties were divorced after eleven years of marriage. The divorce order gave mother sole physical rights and responsibilities concerning the parties' four children subject to father's periodic visitation. The order provided the parties with shared legal rights and responsibilities regarding the children. A recitation of the facts that accompanied the divorce can be found in Adamson v. Dodge, 174 Vt. 311, 313-14, 816 A.2d 455, 458-59 (2002). The matters before us relate solely to events that occurred in the years following the divorce. In 2000, shortly after the divorce, father moved to Wisconsin to begin his medical career. He did so with the hope that mother would move the family to Wisconsin. Id. at 314, 816 A.2d at 459. Shortly after father's move, mother informed him that she was not moving to Wisconsin, a revelation that prompted father to give six-month notice of resignation only two weeks after starting his job. Id. at 315, 816 A.2d at 460. In December 2000, father returned to Plattsburgh, New York, where he purchased a home and joined a medical practice, anticipating that mother and the children would remain nearby in Vermont. In June 2003, however, mother and the children moved to Wisconsin in order to seek employment, be nearer to her family, and pursue a romantic relationship. The issues presently before the Court emanate from mother's relocation.

¶ 3. At the time of mother's move in June 2003, father and mother filed cross-motions to modify their parental rights and responsibilities. Father sought sole physical rights and responsibilities; mother sought sole legal rights and responsibilities. The court did not rule on the motions for more than eighteen months, but ultimately denied both in January 2005 on the grounds that mother's move was not a significant and unanticipated change of circumstances necessary to trigger modification pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 668. Neither parent appealed this decision. In February and April of 2005, father filed two pro se motions relating to mother's move. The first sought to enforce the existing parent-child contact order, and asked that the court find mother in contempt of the order due to her relocation to Wisconsin. Father also sought to compel mother to return to Vermont with the children. In response, mother filed a motion requesting that the court establish a new parent-child contact schedule in light of the parties' changed locations. Father thereafter filed a motion to recover fees and costs. On June 3, 2005, the family court ruled that it lacked authority to force a parent to move, and established a new, logistically feasible, parent-child contact order. Father's request for fees and costs was denied. This appeal followed.

¶ 4. We note at the outset that many of father's arguments on appeal are directed at the denial of his June 2003 motion to modify the parental rights and responsibilities order — a ruling he did not appeal at the time of the family court's January 2005 decision. In arguing that we should now consider the unappealed order, father contends that the court's denial of the cross-motions to modify was confusing, and that because he was unclear about the impact of the rulings, he did not appeal. We appreciate that the delay between the parties' filing and the court's denial of the motions may have exacerbated the confusion regarding the motion. However, we have a strong interest in finality, especially with respect to orders affecting the interests of children. If father did not understand the effect of the order denying both motions, he could have asked for clarification from the family court. Although we will not permit unfair advantage to be taken of a pro se litigant, it is not the obligation of the family court or this Court to offer affirmative help. Nevitt v. Nevitt, 155 Vt. 391, 401, 584 A.2d 1134, 1140 (1990). Having failed to timely appeal the denial of his motion regarding parental rights and responsibilities, father has waived his right to now contest the result. Stein v. Stein, 73 Vt. 627, 628, 800 A.2d 460, 462 (2002) (mem.). Accordingly, the only issues before this Court are those raised in response to the family court rulings of June 3, 2005.

¶ 5. Father argues that the family court erred when it refused to order mother to return to Vermont to comply with the parent-child contact order in the parties' final divorce order. He contends that her return was the necessary consequence of the denial of her motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities. We disagree. The 2000 divorce order did not require that mother reside in Vermont. While the relocation of a custodial parent may be a ground to modify a preexisting parental rights and responsibilities order, it is not a sufficient ground to order that parent to return to this state. See Lane v. Schenck, 158 Vt. 489, 499, 614 A.2d 786, 791 (1992) (establishing that although visitation orders are meant to facilitate parent-child relationships, such orders "do not warrant nullification of the custodial parent's reasonable decisions" as to residence).

¶ 6. Father next challenges the family court's award of the new parent-child contact order consistent with mother's request. The previous parent-child contact order in the divorce decree was specific: father was...